Literature DB >> 12098521

Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers.

Douglas K Martin1, Mita Giacomini, Peter A Singer.   

Abstract

Fairness is a key goal of priority setting and 'accountability for reasonableness' has emerged as the leading framework for fair priority setting. However, it has not been shown acceptable to those engaged in priority setting. In particular, since it was developed in the context of a primarily privately funded health system, its applicability in a primarily publicly funded system is uncertain. In this paper, we describe elements of fairness identified by decision-makers engaged in priority setting for new technologies in Canada (a primarily publicly funded system). According to these decision makers, accountability for reasonableness is acceptable and applicable. Our findings also provide refinements to accountability for reasonableness. Copyright 2002 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12098521     DOI: 10.1016/s0168-8510(01)00237-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Policy        ISSN: 0168-8510            Impact factor:   2.980


  25 in total

Review 1.  Eliciting reasons: empirical methods in priority setting.

Authors:  Andreas Hasman
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2003-03

Review 2.  Setting Healthcare Priorities at the Macro and Meso Levels: A Framework for Evaluation.

Authors:  Edwine W Barasa; Sassy Molyneux; Mike English; Susan Cleary
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2015-09-16

Review 3.  Societal values in the allocation of healthcare resources: is it all about the health gain?

Authors:  Tania Stafinski; Devidas Menon; Deborah Marshall; Timothy Caulfield
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Impact of a novel prioritization framework on clinician-led oncology drug submissions.

Authors:  J Keech; J Beca; A Eisen; E Kennedy; J Kim; C T Kouroukis; G Darling; S E Ferguson; A Finelli; T M Petrella; J R Perry; K Chan; S Gavura
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 3.677

5.  6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs.

Authors:  George P Browman; Braden Manns; Neil Hagen; Carole R Chambers; Anita Simon; Shane Sinclair
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.840

6.  Access to intensive care unit beds for neurosurgery patients: a qualitative case study.

Authors:  D K Martin; P A Singer; M Bernstein
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 10.154

7.  Eliciting preferences for priority setting in genetic testing: a pilot study comparing best-worst scaling and discrete-choice experiments.

Authors:  Franziska Severin; Jörg Schmidtke; Axel Mühlbacher; Wolf H Rogowski
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 4.246

8.  Determinants of patient satisfaction with cataract surgery and length of time on the waiting list.

Authors:  B L Conner-Spady; S Sanmugasunderam; P Courtright; J J McGurran; T W Noseworthy
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.638

9.  Preferences for antiviral therapy of chronic hepatitis C: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Axel C Mühlbacher; John F P Bridges; Susanne Bethge; Ch-Markos Dintsios; Anja Schwalm; Andreas Gerber-Grote; Matthias Nübling
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2016-02-04

10.  Implementing accountability for reasonableness framework at district level in Tanzania: a realist evaluation.

Authors:  Stephen Maluka; Peter Kamuzora; Miguel Sansebastián; Jens Byskov; Benedict Ndawi; Øystein E Olsen; Anna-Karin Hurtig
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2011-02-10       Impact factor: 7.327

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.